On 2/18/13 10:20 AM, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote: > On 18.02.2013 09:12, Eric Sandeen wrote: >> On 2/18/13 3:43 AM, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote: >>> Hi >>> >>> >>> The more or less simple question is: >>> Is the requirement for 32bit programs to support 64bit inodes the same >>> as LFS(Large File Support)? >>> >>> IOW if a programs was compiled with FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 (if i remember >>> that name correctly) should it work? >> >> I think so (I don't know where the formal documentation is, >> http://users.suse.com/~aj/linux_lfs.html is an old but still good >> over view I think). From open(2): >> >> EOVERFLOW >> (stat()) path refers to a file whose size cannot be represented >> in the type off_t. This can occur when an application >> compiled on a 32-bit platform without -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 >> calls stat() on a file whose size exceeds (2<<31)-1 bits. >> >> EOVERFLOW can happen if the inode nubmer doesn't fit in a (32-bit) >> stat struct as well. > > I've looked into /usr/include/sys/stat.h > > And i see this: > # ifndef __ino_t_defined > # ifndef __USE_FILE_OFFSET64 > typedef __ino_t ino_t; > # else > typedef __ino64_t ino_t; > # endif > # define __ino_t_defined > # endif > > So ino_t really is __ino64_t when compiled with the LFS option, which > answers my original question. :-) > > Besides i don't have that many programs that (should) care about inodes. > Of the top of my head i care about rsync/perl/find/ln/ls, which > apparently work correctly. find cares, ls cares . . . but I would assume that they get it right :) I'm getting a box set up w/ 32-bit F18, I want to re-run my test over it and see if things have improved at all in 5 years. :) -Eric _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
